The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
The statement states the idea from the memo of the advertising director of the super screen movie production company which states that more amount of the budget should be allocated next year for the advertising. The evidences shown by the advertising director is not persuasive and compelling.
Firstly, the director has taken the support of the report from the marketing department stating that during the last year fewer people has attended the super screen produced movies than in any previous years. This report is not supported with any evidence and director has not associated the idea of the report with any survey or any clarifications regarding how the report was prepared and what sample space was considered for developing it. so the authenticity of the report can't be justified.
Secondly, as per the argument the percentage of the positive reviews has increased though there was decline in the increase in the viewers of the super screen produced movies. This might be the case if and only if there is lack of the authenticity of the reviews that is one person has given more than one reviews. so considering the reviews and judging can considered as questionable. It might be the case the content provided by the super screen produced movies are convincing to the viewers and more better movies with better content was available at the same time at the release of the movies of the super screen.
Thirdly, considering the problem in the awareness of the people for good movies can be not accepted as every humans are different and everyone has a different taste. So if one is able to connect to the scenario of the movie it not necessary that other on has the same liking towards it. It might be the other case in which the funds utilized last year were not effective as much as it could be. so it can be considered the problem from the marketing Department that they have not promoted the movies properly. There should be internal audit among the department and decide what mistakes took place last year.
The super screen should also try to develop such movies that can help them to connect their ideas to more and large diversity of the people so that myriad amount of viewership can be obtained. They should avoid making films on the cliché subjects which very common and viewers are not interested in watching.
Hence the argument of the advertising director to increase the budget is completely wrong and unconvincing as the above questions raised are not properly answered in the memo. And this shows that there should not be increase in the budget of advertising.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 444 350
No. of Characters: 2118 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.59 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.77 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.533 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.48 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.672 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 22, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and compelling. Firstly, the director has taken the support of the report from...
^^
Line 3, column 479, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...g it. so the authenticity of the report cant be justified. Secondly, as per the a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 316, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
...person has given more than one reviews. so considering the reviews and judging can...
^^
Line 5, column 499, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...ovies are convincing to the viewers and more better movies with better content was availabl...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 167, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[3]
Message: “So if” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ent and everyone has a different taste. So if one is able to connect to the scenario ...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...wers are not interested in watching. Hence the argument of the advertising directo...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 154, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... above questions raised are not properly answered in the memo. And this shows tha...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2158.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 444.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86036036036 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57974431997 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421171171171 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 680.4 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2447254043 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.888888889 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6666666667 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16666666667 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316506268395 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09619401798 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121040113173 0.0701772020484 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163324039414 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0888793844487 0.0628817314937 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.